Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting for the 2019 MBP [Merged]
- Thread starter travod
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Going thinner and lighter has always been a legitimate pursue on a portable device, no problem about that, and Apple has traditionally been great at pushing the limits on that front with careful consideration as to how much function is compromised. The frustration with current gen Macs is that Apple seems to have lost grip of that fine balance between form and function.
It could also be a function of the fact that most of MBP’s customers don’t value battery life as much as in the past. I would definitely prefer better battery life, but I have to concede that most newer users don’t seem to care about it as much. The folks who do want better battery life (people who have to use the machine outside of an office with no easy access to a charging outlet) seem to be a decreasing slice of the user base.
Going USB-C has a good case of thinning the chassis while sacrificing battery volume, since the USB-Power Delivery enabled power banks and also open standard chargers, so getting power into the MBP actually does get easier now than before.
But my above response was more concerned on the portability nature of, well, a portable computer. The advent of the Air line particularly the 11” was a good example of pursuing that to the extreme, while the retina Pros 2012-2015 offered a balance incling towards performance while still keeps a slim form for its class. I can see the same in most of the previous Apple laptop lineup as far as Titanimum G4 PowerBooks. With the 2016 onwards however, they clearly went too far, to the point of introducing keyboard issues and cooling difficulties which surely weren’t intended.
I'd stay away from super-thin MBPs at this point in time... The MacBook and MacBook Air serve the ultraportable market. There may well be room for a very, very thin big-screen machine with a 15 W processor, but that is NOT the MacBook Pro - that is a 15" (or so) MacBook.
As Apple moves part of the Mac line to ARM, there need to be two distinct portable lines... I suspect Apple will use the word "Pro"to denote Intel-based Macs (some possibility that some will be Ryzen-based, but x64) in a general sense.
I suspect the Intel line is here to stay, and that ARM Macs are going to be an option that run apps from the Mac App Store only but offer lower prices, very long battery lives and some new designs that x64 won't allow.
Something like this (as of about 2021):
MacBook (ARM-based)
12" - under 2 lbs, uses iPad Pro processor
14" - ~2.5 lbs, uses more of the same cores the iPad Pro uses (8 high-power cores instead of 4 high-power plus 4 low-power)
Aimed at home/student laptop users and "road warriors" who do a lot of e-mail and writing on the road.
MacBook Pro (x64, probably Intel because mobile Ryzen is unimpressive)
13-14" - quad-core, medium power, 3-3.5 lbs. This is right in the weight and power range of the present 13" MBP.
16" - workstation class laptop, 8-core, 45 watt CPU, discrete GPU. 4-5 lbs. The present 15" MBP is right at the bottom of this weight and power range, which is also occupied by Lenovo, HP and Dell "thin-and-light" workstation laptops.
16" has relatively high-end discrete graphics options, may well support 64 GB of RAM.
Aimed at mobile creative professionals, high-end student use (especially students in the visual arts, music, film and science), also attracts higher-end business users and some scientific/technical professional laptop users.
There are two possible portables missing from this range. One is the lightest possible Intel/AMD laptop - I tend to think Apple will push the extremely light machines to ARM (and the Mac App Store) relatively quickly. They may leave an Intel MacBook in the lineup for a while during the ARM transition, but it will probably get few if any updates.
The second is a large-screened ARM MacBook. Apple might do this, and I think it's beneficial both to users looking for this type of machine (15-16" screen, 3-3.5 lbs, 8 of the cores the iPad Pro uses 4 of) and for classic 15" MBP users. It takes some weight pressure off the 15-16" MBP, which can go towards 4.5 or even 5 lbs, knowing that the 15" MacBook is there for the users who want something really light with a big screen.
The rest of the (desktop/all-in-one/workstation) line might look something like:
Mac Mini (ARM based)
Lowest end model uses iPad Pro processor, upgrades have more cores.
Very media-focused, usually uses a TV as a monitor, designed to be tucked behind the TV (may even be a "stick" design that plugs directly into the HDMI port).
Somewhere in between an Apple TV and a "conventional computer" - ports are very limited - something like HDMI, audio out and 1 USB-C (which may or may not support Thunderbolt).
Non-upgradeable (RAM, SSD are fixed)
May have the option to run like an Apple TV - using "mouse" input from the remote and a very limited on-screen keyboard. It will certainly support a real keyboard and mouse - the question is whether it will require them.
Mac Mini Pro (either Core i3 and i5 or Ryzen 3 and 5 - this is a great place for a Ryzen)
Mac Mini form factor.
Distinctly a general purpose computer.
Relatively full port complement including Thunderbolt and wired Ethernet (10G optional).
Upgradeable RAM, easy external storage expansion, even the possibility of an eGPU (multiple Thunderbolt ports).
Designed to run with a computer monitor, keyboard and mouse or as a headless server (there is nothing keeping the user from attaching this to a TV with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, or attaching the ARM machine to a computer monitor, but each is designed to be ideal for one purpose).
iMac (ARM based)
21" plus a "living room model" with a TV-sized screen (possibly a couple of size choices)
8-core processor, basically a double iPad Pro with a clock boost
No chin or bezel, larger models wall-mountable
Home/student/media-focused all-in-one - 21" is designed as a bedroom/kitchen/dorm room computer, big one is a living room TV replacement.
Non-upgradeable with a modest and media-focused port selection (including the first HDMI input ever seen on a Mac and a couple of audio out options to work with surround systems). Certainly has a couple of USB-C ports, which probably support Thunderbolt, wired Ethernet a "maybe" to "unlikely".
iMac Pro (27" is Core i7/i9 (or Ryzen 7/9), new 32" model is Xeon (or Threadripper) based)
Note that this rolls together the current 27" iMac and the current iMac Pro under the iMac Pro banner
Powerful desktop processors in 27" model, expensive 32" model uses workstation processors and ECC RAM.
Oriented largely towards photographers, filmmakers, musicians, with the 27" model also marketed as a high end home/student computer and the 32" doubling as a technical workstation.
Upgradeable RAM, excellent port selection emphasizes multiple Thunderbolt buses, 10G Ethernet and very high-end WiFi standard.
Mac Pro (Xeon, Threadripper or EPYC based)
Very high end modular workstation (starts at $6499 or so) - aimed at Hollywood and other very high-end creative users. Differentiated from HP workstations by primary focus on film/video (although also appealing to architecture/engineering/etc.). HP is the opposite.
Upgradeable RAM (to a VERY high limit) is just the start - supports (Apple supplied) upgrades to storage, CPU, GPU (may have a non-GPU PCIe slot or several).
RAM will be standard (ECC), some storage may be standard (boot drive will be proprietary, but there might very well be NVMe slots in addition), CPU may unofficially be standard (it voids the warranty to upgrade the CPU yourself, although Apple will do it happily) - but sticking a compatible Xeon in just might work. GPU will almost certainly be an Apple-supplied module that is incompatible with standard PCIe cards (both because video out is over Thunderbolt and as NVidia-proofing).
Superb port selection includes multiple Thunderbolt and 10 Gb Ethernet ports, may include ability to add high-end audio or video I/O through PCIe. Thunderbolt ports are on multiple buses (at least 2, maybe 4).
May have dual-processor options.
As Apple moves part of the Mac line to ARM, there need to be two distinct portable lines... I suspect Apple will use the word "Pro"to denote Intel-based Macs (some possibility that some will be Ryzen-based, but x64) in a general sense.
I suspect the Intel line is here to stay, and that ARM Macs are going to be an option that run apps from the Mac App Store only but offer lower prices, very long battery lives and some new designs that x64 won't allow.
Something like this (as of about 2021):
MacBook (ARM-based)
12" - under 2 lbs, uses iPad Pro processor
14" - ~2.5 lbs, uses more of the same cores the iPad Pro uses (8 high-power cores instead of 4 high-power plus 4 low-power)
Aimed at home/student laptop users and "road warriors" who do a lot of e-mail and writing on the road.
MacBook Pro (x64, probably Intel because mobile Ryzen is unimpressive)
13-14" - quad-core, medium power, 3-3.5 lbs. This is right in the weight and power range of the present 13" MBP.
16" - workstation class laptop, 8-core, 45 watt CPU, discrete GPU. 4-5 lbs. The present 15" MBP is right at the bottom of this weight and power range, which is also occupied by Lenovo, HP and Dell "thin-and-light" workstation laptops.
16" has relatively high-end discrete graphics options, may well support 64 GB of RAM.
Aimed at mobile creative professionals, high-end student use (especially students in the visual arts, music, film and science), also attracts higher-end business users and some scientific/technical professional laptop users.
There are two possible portables missing from this range. One is the lightest possible Intel/AMD laptop - I tend to think Apple will push the extremely light machines to ARM (and the Mac App Store) relatively quickly. They may leave an Intel MacBook in the lineup for a while during the ARM transition, but it will probably get few if any updates.
The second is a large-screened ARM MacBook. Apple might do this, and I think it's beneficial both to users looking for this type of machine (15-16" screen, 3-3.5 lbs, 8 of the cores the iPad Pro uses 4 of) and for classic 15" MBP users. It takes some weight pressure off the 15-16" MBP, which can go towards 4.5 or even 5 lbs, knowing that the 15" MacBook is there for the users who want something really light with a big screen.
The rest of the (desktop/all-in-one/workstation) line might look something like:
Mac Mini (ARM based)
Lowest end model uses iPad Pro processor, upgrades have more cores.
Very media-focused, usually uses a TV as a monitor, designed to be tucked behind the TV (may even be a "stick" design that plugs directly into the HDMI port).
Somewhere in between an Apple TV and a "conventional computer" - ports are very limited - something like HDMI, audio out and 1 USB-C (which may or may not support Thunderbolt).
Non-upgradeable (RAM, SSD are fixed)
May have the option to run like an Apple TV - using "mouse" input from the remote and a very limited on-screen keyboard. It will certainly support a real keyboard and mouse - the question is whether it will require them.
Mac Mini Pro (either Core i3 and i5 or Ryzen 3 and 5 - this is a great place for a Ryzen)
Mac Mini form factor.
Distinctly a general purpose computer.
Relatively full port complement including Thunderbolt and wired Ethernet (10G optional).
Upgradeable RAM, easy external storage expansion, even the possibility of an eGPU (multiple Thunderbolt ports).
Designed to run with a computer monitor, keyboard and mouse or as a headless server (there is nothing keeping the user from attaching this to a TV with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, or attaching the ARM machine to a computer monitor, but each is designed to be ideal for one purpose).
iMac (ARM based)
21" plus a "living room model" with a TV-sized screen (possibly a couple of size choices)
8-core processor, basically a double iPad Pro with a clock boost
No chin or bezel, larger models wall-mountable
Home/student/media-focused all-in-one - 21" is designed as a bedroom/kitchen/dorm room computer, big one is a living room TV replacement.
Non-upgradeable with a modest and media-focused port selection (including the first HDMI input ever seen on a Mac and a couple of audio out options to work with surround systems). Certainly has a couple of USB-C ports, which probably support Thunderbolt, wired Ethernet a "maybe" to "unlikely".
iMac Pro (27" is Core i7/i9 (or Ryzen 7/9), new 32" model is Xeon (or Threadripper) based)
Note that this rolls together the current 27" iMac and the current iMac Pro under the iMac Pro banner
Powerful desktop processors in 27" model, expensive 32" model uses workstation processors and ECC RAM.
Oriented largely towards photographers, filmmakers, musicians, with the 27" model also marketed as a high end home/student computer and the 32" doubling as a technical workstation.
Upgradeable RAM, excellent port selection emphasizes multiple Thunderbolt buses, 10G Ethernet and very high-end WiFi standard.
Mac Pro (Xeon, Threadripper or EPYC based)
Very high end modular workstation (starts at $6499 or so) - aimed at Hollywood and other very high-end creative users. Differentiated from HP workstations by primary focus on film/video (although also appealing to architecture/engineering/etc.). HP is the opposite.
Upgradeable RAM (to a VERY high limit) is just the start - supports (Apple supplied) upgrades to storage, CPU, GPU (may have a non-GPU PCIe slot or several).
RAM will be standard (ECC), some storage may be standard (boot drive will be proprietary, but there might very well be NVMe slots in addition), CPU may unofficially be standard (it voids the warranty to upgrade the CPU yourself, although Apple will do it happily) - but sticking a compatible Xeon in just might work. GPU will almost certainly be an Apple-supplied module that is incompatible with standard PCIe cards (both because video out is over Thunderbolt and as NVidia-proofing).
Superb port selection includes multiple Thunderbolt and 10 Gb Ethernet ports, may include ability to add high-end audio or video I/O through PCIe. Thunderbolt ports are on multiple buses (at least 2, maybe 4).
May have dual-processor options.
This would be fantastic if it did happen - I'm skeptical it will, but it would help to balance out Apple's product line better. Currently you have all the choice in the world at the 13" size, from a $999 (2015) Air right up to a supercharged 13" quad core pro and everything in between. If you want anything larger at all, your only option is the 15" pro, and once you start speccing it up to what I would call a usable main computer configuration (mainly the SSD size) you're looking at over $2,500. It's too expensive to really be a serious option for most office type work, yet at the same time it's basically a supercharged ultrabook most heavy users will be wary of. The 'pro' machines need to trend back towards using SO-DIMM memory, swappable M.2 SSDs, non glued-in batteries and better cooling to allow the top end intel chips to actually make use of their turbo meaningfully. The current chassis could then be repurposed as a MacBook (or even MBA) - provided they can actually fix the KB.
Designing a new keyboard that's the best they can fit into their chassis, not designing the best keyboard they can and then building their machine around it is one rather beautifully demonstrated example from the current machines...
Thats a bit subjective. From my perspective, the latest butterfly is indeed the best keyboard I have ever worked with, but then again, I always preferred keyboards with low travel and Apple's current design has unmatched key stability and precision. I do agree of course that their primary design goal was to minimise the z dimension.
They did. Even discounting the subjective ones like port choice and soldering, there are objective reliability issues in KB (with official programs coverage, and then 2018 additional of silicon), and display flex cable (with 2018 design clearly attempting to fix). I would describe them as compromising the design beyond their capabilities in even just making the machine works as intended.
To be fair to the MBP 15, all the other workstation makers (Lenovo, HP, Dell) have "basically a supercharged ultrabook" designs at the heart of their workstation lines - they largely replaced traditional, highly modular 15" workstations a few years ago (17" workstations are still modular, and some manufacturers still offer one legacy 15" design).
The average 15" workstation weighs around 4.5 lbs, instead of 6+ a few years ago, and it no longer has user-replaceable batteries, for example. They have power-optimized NVidia graphics (instead of Apple's power-optimized AMD graphics). High-power GPUs in a workstation notebook are expensive options on 17" models only. Some of them have SODIMM RAM or an open M.2 slot, but they've lost the truly swappable storage their 6 lb predecessors had.
High-powered GPUs now show up on gaming machines to the exclusion of workstations - they're big, heavy, loud and not necessarily reliable. The few slimline models have dreadful battery life. Razer sells about 30,000 15" Blades annually, while Apple sells a million or more comparably priced MBP 15s.
I'm not saying Apple's tradeoffs are perfect - I'd love to see the new MBP 16 get a little thicker and gain half a pound for better cooling, a great keyboard and a 7nm midrange Vega. It is close to what most pro users want and what Lenovo and friends are pushing (it may be a little too thin, and it could use a port to stick a flash drive in without a dongle).
The average 15" workstation weighs around 4.5 lbs, instead of 6+ a few years ago, and it no longer has user-replaceable batteries, for example. They have power-optimized NVidia graphics (instead of Apple's power-optimized AMD graphics). High-power GPUs in a workstation notebook are expensive options on 17" models only. Some of them have SODIMM RAM or an open M.2 slot, but they've lost the truly swappable storage their 6 lb predecessors had.
High-powered GPUs now show up on gaming machines to the exclusion of workstations - they're big, heavy, loud and not necessarily reliable. The few slimline models have dreadful battery life. Razer sells about 30,000 15" Blades annually, while Apple sells a million or more comparably priced MBP 15s.
I'm not saying Apple's tradeoffs are perfect - I'd love to see the new MBP 16 get a little thicker and gain half a pound for better cooling, a great keyboard and a 7nm midrange Vega. It is close to what most pro users want and what Lenovo and friends are pushing (it may be a little too thin, and it could use a port to stick a flash drive in without a dongle).
But these reliability issues are not inherent to the laptop design itself, are they? Because if you want to continue your argument in that direction, it would mean claiming that its impossible to make a reliable low-travel keyboard or a thin laptop with reliable display (I hope we can agree that both such claims would be nonsensical). What we are dealign with are trivial miscalculations (such as allegedly using a cable thats too short) or unforeseen problems (such as low travel keys being prone to degree accumulation). These are typical "redesign" thicknesses and often occur when you change things. As process matures, iterative improvements of the design fix these issues one by one.
The fact is: yes, while the 2016 design had some unfortunate reliability problems, it didn't compromise on performance (unlike many other manufacturers who prefer to put 15W CPUs in their premium laptops), connectivity (statements along the lines of "I don't want to buy USB-C cables or equipment" notwithstanding) or battery. At the same time, it improved portability, the display technology, thermals (despite much smaller chassis) and high-speed connectivity, among others. The rest is, as you say, subjective.
Did you miss the whole throttle-gate ordeal when you typed "didn't compromise on performance"? Even post patch, the i9 is shown in more than enough field tests to be hardly faster if not slower than a i7 2018 15".
Look, evolutionary tech advancements are expected in a laptop, especially a premium brand like Apple who has been doing it for decades. Who doesn't want a wide gamut display, TB3 bandwidth, light weight and small foot print on a laptop? The topic on hand is how much of the other qualities are compromised, intentional or not. This touch bar gen of MBP went too far on more than enough fronts to almost be universally considered compromised one way or another. Mind you, it is sometimes okay if the ways it is compromised do align with customer's interest, I am a owner of a 13" 2018 specifically because I want portability while will having a fair amount of performance which is absent in the rMB and MBA2018. But that does not mean I could write off the other "features" of this machine which I absolutely hate, particularly the touchbar and the KB. I just make do with it.
For relatively low volumes of typing I can see why people would like it, being quite light touch and ‘zippy’ but I really just don’t think it is suitable for longer more sustained typing sessions due to a lack of dampening and travel. I remember seeing some people posting their companies won’t allow these KBs to be used on ergonomic grounds a while after they first appeared on the 2016 machines...
A software power management bug that was fixed literally a week after being discovered? Why are we still talking about this? And what does it have to do with laptop design.
Complain to Intel and their marketing department for the weird differentiation on Coffe Lake CPUs... The MBP is able to run the i9 all cores blazing at sustained 45-50Watts while maintaining 3.2-3.4 Ghz clocks, thats 0.4 Ghz over the spec. Its not the the i9 underperforms, its that i7 exceeds expectations due to much higher boost ceiling than previous Intel CPUs.
Anyway, this all is moot. One has to compare it to the previous models, if anything. And in comparison to earlier generation, there has been no compromise in performance, either relative or absolute. The CPUs are still 28W/45W and they are still able to maintain that TDP in sustained operation with good boost clocks.
Sure, but that again is subjective. For example, I love the new keyboard and I find the TB much more useful than the utterly pointless function key bar. Can't really judge functionality based on that.
In my experience one needs less force to work with the new keyboard, so I prefer it for long typing sessions (as a researcher and programmer, I type pretty much all day everyday). Of course, if one is used to mash the keys forcefully, I can understand that some people complain about lack of dampening.
When 3 hours was "great battery life", an hour more made a big difference. Now, whether it's 8 or 10 or 12 might not matter any more because it's always "enough".
That's stil completely ridiculous. And the ergonomic department at that company is bonkers.
If you forget about the traditional keyboards, it makes ergonomic sense to minimize the movement you make when typing. Less movement = faster typing and less RSI. Of course, you want some form of tactile feedback, so it makes sense to keep a physical keyboard, not a virtual one like the iPad one I'm currently typing this on. Aside from that, the thinner the better. And that's plain mechanics for you.
Of course, people who have gotten used to keyboards with deep actuation will want to continue working on such keyboards. I'm also not saying that mechanical keyboards don't provide a pleasant typing experience. But back in the days when I learned typing on typewriters, we had to learn on mechanical ones. You know, with 5 centimeters of actuation and sticks punching the letters on paper. We could later move on to electrical ones (IBMs with the letter balls) and electronic ones (with computer style keys). Even back then, there were people who disliked the electronic ones because the actuation wasn’t what they were used to. They preferred the mechanical ones.
Same discussion here. Keyboards are still going flatter and people are still disliking it because of habits, not because the old keyboards are inherently better. All that considering, of course, that the keyboard would not be defective in the first place.
During the "roundtable" concerning the trashcan Mac Pro, Craig Federighi famous coined the "designed into a thermal corner" analogy, which can also be used to describe the 2018 i7/i9 situation. In my view, the chassis designed to have so little tolerance in thermal envelope adapting to a newer CPU iteration just 1-2 years apart, is in hindsight "compromised". I don't buy into that pointing finger game and just blame this CPU supplier or that GPU supplier. Apple has had full control on what body of hardware they design with, and then proceed to even not releasing an upgrade iteration in the case of trashcan Mac Pro.
Look, I think we are simply arguing over semantics here. You claim that the 2016-2018 gens of MBP are not compromised, but they are performing at sub-optimal benchmarks that are otherwise intended by Apple from the get go. This is the part that some people cannot agree with, because the same components are realizing higher potential on other manufacturers' laptop design, and the main difference is usually thermal solutions on them. In other words, Apple's design is not as balanced as even the lesser manufacturers out there in adopting the same components.
I can make the same case with the battery volume in the 15". In the 2015 MBP, the battery is rated at 99Wh which pushed the limit of airline regulations (in classifying devices safe to be used in cabin / store in luggage). The 2016 version dramatically decreases that to 76Wh, while on paper maintaining a the same 10-hour life, but in reality people found a much shorter usage time. So they could have put in 99Wh amount of battery, with the price being the machine slightly thicker, but chose not to do so since they felt fine in *compromising* battery life in exchange for, well, chassis thinness I guess.
The KB has taken key travel away (again a compromise in exchange for something). And then the Touch Bar was put in place of the function keys which is also a compromise. Dude this is again all semantics. When the replacement feature does not fully eclipse the older feature then in my eyes, we have a case of inadequate design choice happening.
Anyway, I don't know how this started. I was simply saying "have lost grip of that fine balance between form and function" which in all fairness is a subjective opinion of mine. I don't know why you needed to stress how that may not be objective enough for your taste.
A laptop is not a pro desktop! The Mac Pro issue was that Appel didn't forsee that GPUs would get more power-hungry with time. That won't happen on laptop platforms however. And we are not talking about CPUs 1-2 years apart, we are talking about Intel's stagnation in the chip making business, where they try to beat as much as possible from the same architecture for last 5 years and tweak boost frequencies to get more sales. The laptop design itself is not thermally compromised since it can run the CPU indefinitely at the advertised 45W TDP. This is the same as what the 2012 chassis did. And that is all that matters. I don't see how this is arguing semantics, these are clearly measurable phenomena. It doesn't make sense to talk about thermally compromised design if it runs the components above their official spec.
Other manufactures gaming laptops, sure! Which have other design tradeoffs and which have ALWAYS offered better performance than the MBPs. These complains are nothing specific to the 2016 design. It was the case with the first retina chassis and the unibody chassis as well. Your criticism seems very biased and selective here. To put it differently: what makes you think that these CPUs would have performed any better in the 2012 or 2008 chassis? There eis a lot of evidence that the 2016 chassis actually offers better cooling than the first retina chassis, and that's what matters here.
Sure, they have reduced the battery size, but they have also reduced the average power consumption, for instance by adopting more efficient display tech.
In reality all idependent reviews have tested the battery life as same or exceeding the previous model (with larger battery), and I have here around twenty of these laptops in operation and I can ensure you that they don't lose any actual battery runtime. The only loss in runtime occurs under high load, which is moot, since you won't have any reasonable operating time under such circumstances anyway. And they still have better battery runtimes than any other laptop with similar hardware.
I understand all this and I certainly not going to argue about subjective preferences. Everybody has a different opinion here, and it's fine. However, I think we can talk about pros and contrast of certain design choices objectively, while taking the available data into account. And I feel that some things you wrote are based on biased information that doesn't take the full context into account.
An example: many thin and light laptops that have superior cooling use the bottom laptop panel for air intake. In these laptops, the bottom cover is essentially an open mesh through which the air is sucked by the fans. This obviously results in better airflow, but it makes the laptop unsuitable to operation in cramped places or on a lap, since you'd block the vents. Also, some of the laptops have much hotter enclosures (for instance noteboockehck measured over 50C on the bottom side of the Lenovo's X1 extreme during load, whereby the MBP's enclosure was 10C cooler). This — an many others — are examples of the things Apple is taking under consideration when designing their laptops. Overall, they are more practical machines overall. What good does 3% more sustained performance does me if it means that I can't use the laptop on my knees or that it will leave burn marks on my desk if I do some gaming or run a longer compile/simulation?
I can only be as biased as you want to make it out to be. Look, most of these "arguments" have been talked to death here for 3 years in a row while we still see polarizing views, this tells you how the design choices of Apple's may not be universally liked here. The very original point I was trying to make was exactly this: that this company used to be able to create countless laptop iterations that gathered much more wide spread acceptance in its form, while still pushed reasonable bounds in terms of performance.
And I literally said I own a 13" 2018 specifically craved its form factor. I just think it could be an even better machine, had Apple considered not to corner itself as much.
Last edited:
I don't think it's even about hammering away on the KB to be honest - I arranged to use a friend's machine for a day when he didn't need it, and I tried adjusting to press more softly, but I found there's only so lightly you can strike keys while still typing at a reasonable speed. By the end of the day I was definitely beginning to feel it in my fingers.
Looking at what Apple have to play with this year I wonder whether we might see MagSafe returning through necessity with this year's machines - if they want to offer intel's 8C/16T processors, it seems unlikely they will be any better at staying within their TDP than the 8th gen are - meaning more power draw from the chip, and the cooling system. Additionally, under load the Vega GPUs seem to be more power hungry than the radeon pros, so I am wondering if a top end system might actually exceed the 100W limit that USB C can supply. Other manufacturers offer proprietary 120W+ chargers with usb C charging being an additional option.
LOL!
Who thinks of concepts like these? No concept of usability (try writing on that giant touch screen without hitting the keys).